Jump to content

Talk:Myanmar civil war (2021–present)/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Shouldn’t this article be moved back into the “current events” section on Wikipedia’s front page?

The Myanmar Civil War is just as severe/important (if not more so) than most of the wars featured there, and with the Israeli invasion of Lebanon being removed from that section, why not replace it with a deadly conflict in dire need of media attention? LordOfWalruses (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The front page is based on media coverage- so this doesn't qualify. I tried back with Battle of Laukkai EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 11:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
It has been and then been removed several times like a YoYo. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Does Japan support Tatmadaw?

Does Japan support the Tatmadaw? 93.70.114.163 (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that say they do? If not, then probably no. LordOfWalruses (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
https://hrf.org/latest/shadows-of-support-japans-ties-with-burmas-military-junta/
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/01/20/japans-government-should-stop-training-myanmars-military
These are reports by Human rights watch- so its definitely verifiable and trustworthy Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Well no body want to take Myanmar refugees especially from USA. America support Ultranationalist protest in Thailand against monarchy and try expel immigrants. 1.47.148.79 (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Map Updates (January)

Nitpicks, Suggestions, and Maps:

Indisputable Edits:

Disputable Edits:

IdioticAnarchist (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Updated! Thanks again
Suggestions:
  • PDF moved out of Rakhine
  • Control on Papun-Myainggyingu road updated per Irrawaddy map source
Indisputable Edits:
All implemented with the following notes:
  • Kutaw already marked as PDF controlled, no change made (ncm)
  • Yehlwe & Peinnepin, Yedashe already marked as PDF controled (ncm)
  • Muthe unfindable- Indaing Kone also not a GAD recognised village. "Muthel" is not in the correct KNU brigade area. (ncm)
  • CBA does not control Falam-Hakha road just the gate out of Falam towards Hakha
  • From what I read of the Tedim article, it's contested by three groups- the CBA, the CNF and the Junta/ZRA. I've made Tedim contested between four colours accordingly
  • DPLA already indicated in the Intaw area (ncm)
  • Pahoutkyi/Yae Paw Mee is already on the KIA-Junta front in Homalin Tsp. (ncm)
Disputable Edits:
  • Added PDF presence/controlling most of that road in the Salin area as none before
  • Verified Khitthit's reliability with AA source and implemented
  • MNlA-5 roughly added to RJC colour overlaid on border for visibility; Palai Japan is the same as Japan Yedwin
  • Added SSPP east of Momeik- article talks about them not really having any control in the town just on the outskirts
  • Added junta control on the road to Myaukkhinyan as the sagaing-magway area is a bit vague and this is a likely scenario on the ground
EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 21:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

New Zealand did not "invite" the junta

New Zealand only played the role as a host for the ASEAN meeting, New Zealand simply only approved the visas of the junta instead of "inviting" them.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/513161/ban-junta-leaders-from-asean-meeting-in-wellington-myanmar-community

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/513840/asean-summit-myanmar-community-asks-parliament-to-block-junta-representatives Rynoip (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Does anybody have a source that actually states representatives of Myanmar's junta attended the meeting? The English-language sources I could find either do not touch on who attended or were written before the meeting, hence the attendance of the junta members was prospective. Yue🌙 06:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Those sources also only state that protesters were against visas being granted, not that visas were actually granted, because the sources were written before the meeting. Yue🌙 06:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Anyhow, I agree that we should add in if the Junta attended the meeting but the conception of New Zealand inviting the Junta is completely false. That section should probably be rewritten with the details you said. Rynoip (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
It should be rewritten but I don't know it's accurate to say it's "completely false". The first article you link literally says that the MFAT stated that "As an ASEAN member, Myanmar has been invited to be represented at this annual senior officials' level dialogue between New Zealand and ASEAN." Specifically, the core issue I interpret from those protesting the invitation was on the implicit recognition of junta officials as officials representing Myanmar by NZ Immigration.
There is more nuance, of course, but an invitation is an invitation. As Yue said the better way to put this information in is to describe who actually attended the meeting, if any. I would be interested if New Zealand gave preference to competing attendees from NUG or the junta. I couldn't find any sources written about this meeting in Burmese after April 18th (the date of the conference) either. Based on the information from existing sources, I've tweaked the wording as inviting junta officials for now. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 14:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
The protests about the junta is about them entering New Zealand, people urged the government to not approve the visas of the junta. New Zealand more of "approved" the junta in entering New Zealand rather than "inviting" the junta.
However about if the junta actually attended we have no idea if the junta attended at all. Rynoip (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Map Updates (February)

Nitpicks, Suggestions, and Maps:

Indisputable Edits:

Disputable Edits:

IdioticAnarchist (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

CBA and CC I will leave separate for now.
All updated with following notes:
  • PDF/PNLA already in Nyaungshwe Township, no change made
  • Bagan Kwe and Nyaung Kyoe as well as the four bases in narinjara article are all in the same area, implemented
  • "Kim Poon Kyar"-> Kinmunchin Mountain is in a strange area, I attempted to verify since it would be a massive jump in the AA front through undeveloped mountains. The other villages mentioned in the article as having increased junta presence just doesn't make sense for AA to be suddenly in the middle of the lowlands. Have instead marked it as increased PDF presence near Thephyu, Thabaung Township. Also reduced presnece of PDF in the area due to lack of information I could find, especially east of Pathein river or on the Chaungtha road.
  • Areas around Sittwe -> Wabo village area, implemented
  • "Pinnaigone" Peinnegon in Kyaikhto Township already KNLA controlled, no change made
  • Taungkatoon already KA controlled, no change made
  • Kann Parr Ni/Yay Taw etc area already controlled by PDF, as it says anti-regime groups, no change made
  • Kyauk Khet already controlled by KNA. no change made.
Disputable Edits:
  • Sar Ou San added, it's very close to where AA already was a month ago (source says 5 miles from 344 not 344 itself)
  • KIA already in Manton Township, no changes made
  • Area near Point 1248 as described in article is already KNLA territory on map (Mae U Su, Thailand border)
EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 27 March 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Myanmar civil war (2021–present) → Myanmar civil war – When people refer to the civil war in Myanmar, they 99.9% of the time refer to this one. We don't need to specify the date, same with the Gaza war which is just Gaza war even though there were about 17 other Gaza wars. Its just implied that you are talking about the most recent one. DotesConks (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Opposed. The conflict has gone on for decades and this article already very big. Context matters. This is just the latest phase in that civil war and it's significant enough to merit it's own article. Just look at the size of it. What people refer to somewhere and what is practical for wikipedia are imo different things. What ppl think probably say more about those ppls level of contextual knowledge rather than anything else. Which solution imo should be to better explain that context. A rename to something else than just plain Myanmar civil war would've imo been better and a date qualifier isn't an big enough confusing factor to prevent ppl finding this article with the Myanmar Civil War as an search word. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Oppose: Gaza war is a war within the gaza strip between Hamas and Israel, not a civil war within one country.. Pretty much every "ongoing" civil war article has the timeline date, for example Sudanese civil war (2023–present), Yemeni civil war (2014–present), Somali Civil War (2009–present). We can change the article title depending on the result after the civil war ends. Although in some terms you are right for the proposal, I think we should redirect Myanmar civil war into this page rather than the Myanmar conflict one. Imwin567 (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Oppose – Myanmar civil war (2021–present) covers the current phase of the conflict. The wider conflict has been described as a civil war long before the 2021 coup. Yue🌙 05:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Oppose – As others said above, in order to keep the article coherent, it is important to limit its scope. If we broaden the scope, then the pertinent information that a would be reader is seeking would become buried in too much additional information. Sir Ross ★▀▀ (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Oppose — Changing the title of the article will lead to confusion with the broader decades long conflict in the country. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
Oppose – Per Yue. Schweinchen (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Yue. Zinderboff (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Oppose: each article has its own scope (Wider coverage and specific coverage after 2021). Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 03:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Myanmar_civil_war_(2021–present)/Archive_5&oldid=1294138312"